I thank the Chairman and I thank the sub-committee for the opportunity to address it. I am more used to being on the other side, organising hearings of parliamentary committees rather than giving evidence. I congratulate the sub-committee on its stamina and on the debates in recent weeks. It has created a great resource for the future in terms of the material submitted and the quality of many of the debates.
I will outline the work of the European Parliament office in Ireland. I will then address some of the key challenges in communicating on European issues, and I will then conclude with some practical suggestions on how the European Parliament and the Oireachtas could work together on these matters in the future.
I refer to the work of our office. We are a small office with a staff of six people, but we are part of a much wider network, involving not only the 13 Irish MEPs, but members of the European Parliament from other countries, and staff of the European Parliament both in Brussels and the other information offices in all the EU member states.
The work of our office involves two-way communications. We communicate on European Union issues in Ireland and we revert to our colleagues in Brussels on Irish developments and concerns. Regarding communication on EU issues in Ireland, we work not only with the 13 Irish MEPs, but with visiting MEPs from other countries, the Irish Government, the media, the social partners, civic society and schools and universities which constitute a very important part of our work. We also communicate directly with individual Irish citizens.
We have a particular task in communicating about the distinctive role and powers of the European Parliament. In practice, very little distinction is made by most people between the European Union institutions. Our role and that of the Commission are often mixed up. People often phone our office asking for the EU office. Another example is the press clipping from yesterday in which a British paper discussed a vote which took place in the European Parliament describing decisions taken by eurocrats. Our job of communicating in Ireland must focus in a wider sense on the role, powers and institutions of the European Union as a whole. At the same time it must point out that the European Union is not just about Brussels bureaucrats imposing single points of view on member states, but it has a directly elected parliament with growing powers in which every point of view is represented, whether left, right or centre; economic, social or environmental; federalist or eurosceptic.
The other side of the work of our office is communicating on Irish developments and concerns to MEPs in Brussels and other EU countries. The office briefs our colleagues on what is happening Ireland, a role which was especially important in the run-up and aftermath of the Lisbon treaty referendum. It needs to be further developed in the future, by backing up the work of our MEPs and by feeding Irish concerns into the everyday work of the parliament and its committees.
I refer to the key challenges on communicating on European issues. I am conscious from today's meeting and other meetings that many of the points have been already made, so I will be telegraphic. The first, obvious point is that we need to communicate much better the purpose of the European Union. It is not there because of its institutional structure, but because it is trying to do a job, whether on climate change, foreign policy, tacking the economic crisis, tacking cross-border crime and so on.
Related to this is the need to convey the idea that the European Union is not just a bureaucratic project. One of the arguments made during the Lisbon referendum was that the proposed treaty would make the European Union more efficient. However, that was an uninspiring message for people. It is important to communicate that it is neither about bureaucracy nor about the point Deputy Dooley made, namely, who gets the money. It is also about ideals and values, but it needs to have a sense of direction.
I was struck in the debate on the Lisbon referendum campaign by the accusations that the European Union was developing into a superstate and a federal Europe. However, in my experience there are fewer federalists and fewer obvious European Union idealists now than there were when I started working in the European Parliament at the time of the first direct elections.
Another very important challenge is to clarify which issues are matters of direct EU competence, which are areas where the EU has something to offer but is not directly competent, and matters where competence is essentially national. It is even more difficult to communicate this when an original decision has been taken at European Union level, but is then implemented in a specific way at national level. However, in such cases Europe can get the blame for what is essentially national implementation of that original decision.
It is very important to convey the complexity of the EU in clear and simple terms, which is a point that has surfaced repeatedly in the sub-committee debates. It is important to do so as regards the structure of the European Union and for EU treaties and other texts. This is perhaps a lesson more for the future, but there must be more emphasis on how European Union treaties read. It is important to avoid jargon and to write down the points negotiated between 27 member states, which are inevitably complex. The texts must not only have a legal check but must be written in clearer language. I raise several points in that context, including the amendment process of the treaty and the famous self-amending Article 48 of the Lisbon treaty. The article was not self amending, but was in many ways a more democratic way of amending the European Union. However, this was not very clear if one read the original text.
Another example is the matter of trade. There was an extensive debate on whether there was a veto on an overall trade agreement such as the Doha round of the WTO negotiations. It is the case that if there is a very small element requiring unanimity then the whole agreement requires unanimity. It is a pity the treaty does not say as much.
Communicating on Europe is not just about the general, but also the specific. A vital task for our office and for everyone dealing with EU communications is to identify the key issues discussed within the European Union and then to put them into context. Why are such issues on the agenda? What are the differences of view on the issue? Why has a particular compromise solution been chosen? The purpose of this communication is not to say what is good or bad, but to indicate what is at stake. This is the best way of rebutting misleading information or myths.
A related matter is the need to put European decision making into its local context. What do these issues mean for Ireland nationally and locally? An issue which has surfaced several times in the debates of the sub-committee and one with which I am very familiar as I used to work on the environment committee, is the water framework directive. This came to the fore at the end of last year, because of the issue of the EU imposing water rates on schools. Two points need to be matter on this matter. This was an example where Ireland very successfully negotiated a derogation. The discussion held up the negotiators for several hours on the final night of negotiations to ensure domestic consumers in Ireland would not have water rates imposed. This was portrayed as a great success for Ireland, yet the schools issue did not arise. More fundamentally, what on earth was the water framework directive meant to achieve? It is very sensitive legislation but the overall objective is to try to have better water quality in Ireland and to try to avoid the kinds of problems we have seen in Galway with cryptosporidium and so on. The fundamental objective of a water framework directive is to have better quality water throughout Ireland and the member states. That has not come across, and it is very important to continue to communicate on that issue because there are many sensitive issues which still have to be discussed, including a broad consultation process, before that directive properly comes into place.
Another important challenge in communication on the European Union is not only to explain things in an Irish context, but also to try to explain the concerns of other countries within the European Union. Many of the witnesses have said the European Union is about give and take and building partnership between different countries. It is very important to understand the concerns of other countries. One issue in that context is solidarity with countries which may feel under military threat. It is important to understand that those in Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia are much more concerned about that issue than those in Ireland.
It is also important to convey that the European Union is not boring and remote but is about important issues and colourful personalities. I planned to discuss how we could be more professional in the future but that might come out in questioning. I would like to conclude on some practical suggestions on how we could work together in the future.
The important point is that the European Parliament and national parliaments have complementary roles. The European Parliament has increasingly become a specialist on EU legislation and the EU budget, but national parliaments are closer to citizens and are expert on the impact within their own country and how EU legislation is implemented. The two roles are complementary. One way in which this could be built on in the future is that instead of having abstract discussions on subsidiarity, national parliaments could be built in to the increasingly structured debate on the annual legislative programme and what the European Union should be debating over the coming year. The parliament has a particular timeframe in which it gives its point of view to the Commission on what should be on the agenda and there is great scope for national parliaments to be better built into that.
Regarding the pre-legislative and legislative work of the European Union, it is very important that more information is fed back to national parliaments on where we are in the process and what stage is being reached so they can be more effective in introducing their point of view at the right moment in the debate and to greater effect. Once the legislation is adopted, it is only the beginning of the process. It is very important not only that it is correctly implemented but also that it works and meets the purpose for which it was intended. There is huge scope for national parliaments and the European Parliament to work much more closely together on this.
There is a need for resources. It is vital that anyone communicating on the European Union, whether they are a national parliament, us or individual organisations working on European issues has adequate resources. The committee met a delegation from the Danish Parliament and I am always struck by how well resourced Nordic parliaments are on European Union issues, whether it is European committees or the Danish Information Centre on the European Union. It is vital to have the necessary resources, not just money but also staff, to do the job.
It is important we exchange the material we have. The European Parliament in its visitor centre is developing all kinds of interactive material on the European Union. They get visiting school groups to simulate how the EU works. We would love to share that material with members as it is being developed because as the Oireachtas develops an information centre on Europe, there is great scope for exchanging that kind of information. We also have a European Parliament web television channel which opened a couple of months ago. There is great scope for linking up on that.
I thank the committee, wish it the best in drafting its report and offer our office resources to help it in its future work on the European Union.